Argun M. Ulgen


The purpose of this Comment is to analyze how the Supreme Court's treatment of the ADA in Toyota Motor Manufacturing deviated from the economic goals that Congress targeted when it passed the ADA, and argue that plaintiffs such as Ella Williams are exactly whom Congress had in mind when enacting the ADA. In accordance with Congress's intent under Title I of the ADA, "to provide clear, strong, consistent, and enforcable standards addressing discrimination against individuals," this Comment then attempts to establish a clearer, more formal definition of disability, centered on Congress's remedial economic purposes in enacting the ADA. Part I of this Comment will discuss the background of the ADA, concentrating on the Act's economic goals and their relation to the intended interpretation of the term "disability." Part II discusses in detail the Supreme Court's decision in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, contrasting the congressional intent behind the ADA with its recent flawed interpretation by the Court. Finally, Part III attempts to creat a clearer test to guid courts in interpreting the term "disability" to conform to Congress's intent.

Included in

Other Law Commons